Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007.09.27 PC MinutesMINUTES HUGO PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 2007 Call to Order Chairman Schumann called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Bailly, Kleissler, McRoberts, Moore, Schumann, Weidt ABSENT: Rosenquist ALSO PRESENT: Bryan Bear, Community Development Director (CDD) Michele Lindau, Secretary Rachel Simone, Associate Planner Approval of Minutes of September 13, 2007 Schumann made motion, Kleissler seconded, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of September 13, 2007 as submitted. All Ayes. Motion carried. Sathre Minor Subdivision The Commission held a public hearing to consider the request of Thomas and Alicia Sathre, 13040 Ingersoll Avenue North, for a minor subdivision to subdivide a 30 acre parcel into a 10 acre lot and a 20 acre lot. The property is located on the southwest corner of 132nd Street North and Ingersoll Avenue North. The 10 acre lot would have driveway access from 132nd Street, and the 20 acre parcel would have access from Ingersoll Avenue. Both lots met the dimensional requirements in the Rural Residential zoning district. Schumann asked about the park dedication fee. The CDD stated the fee of $2,400 would be paid for each parcel. Schumann opened the public hearing. Vicki Vandell, from Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc. was at the meeting to represent the applicant. Bailly questioned the strange shape of the northern lot. Vandell said it was shaped like that to maintain access to Sunset Lake. McRoberts asked about the distance of the narrowest point of the lot. Vandell said it looked to be about 100 feet. Planning Commission Minutes — September 27, 2007 Page 2 There were no other comments and Schumann closed the public hearing. Weidt made motion, Bailly seconded, to recommend approval of the minor subdivision for Thomas and Alicia Sathre. Ayes: Bailly, McRoberts, Moore, Schumann, Weidt Abstain: Kleissler Motion carried. Open Space Preservation Ordinance The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider revisions to the Open Space Preservation Ordinance. The City Council had requested the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and make a recommendation on a simplified revised version that allowed up to 8 units per 40 acres with fewer restrictions than had been previously considered. The CDD provided background to the Commission on previously revised versions of the ordinance and the most recent public hearing the City Council held to solicit input from the community on the ordinance. He explained some of the major criticisms of the ordinance included the ordinance was too complicated, too much density, lots too small, and too many regulations. The simplified version required PUD approval and 50% open space. It also allowed for 80' setbacks from interior lot lines and 100' from the perimeter property lines as well as common driveways, which could bring about issues with driveway maintenance and possible future assessments for road improvements. Bailly asked if agreements could be written in advance regarding the common driveways, and about the ownership of the open space. The CDD said the City had the ability to deviate from the assessment policy, and it would need to be addressed on a case by case basis. Conservation easements would be dedicated to the City and a third party easement holder. Ownership would be dedicated as part of the approval process. Steve Wlaschin, 7755 125th Street North, asked why only 8 lots were being proposed and not twelve, and he asked about private drives. Bear said discussion at the Council meeting had suggested the density could be lower if the cost of the project went down. Private drives could be used in combination with driveways or even a gated road. Victoria Hoffbeck, 8110 1201h Street, said that no one had received a copy of the new version, and she asked if a third party easement would be in the form of a trust or something else. The CDD pointed out the revised ordinance was posted on the website and copies were made available in the room. He said a third party easement holder would simply have to be one agreeable to the City. According to the proposed ordinance, it would not have to be a trust. Planning Commission Minutes — September 27, 2007 Page 3 Schumann added that to be put in a trust, the trust company would have to accept the land. Hoffbeck said the City should require it be in a trust. She questioned the 80 and 100 foot setbacks. The CDD clarified the ordinance required an 80 foot setback between the houses to accomplish the goal of seeming less dense and a 100 foot setback around the perimeter of the development. Hoffbeck said there were no impact studies done for traffic, population, land protection, noise, lights, garbage, sewage, drainage, the strain on the fire department, police department, and schools or the health, safety and welfare of the community. It was also taking away from the rural character. The recalled a conversation with someone at the Met Council who indicated Hugo was to be taking in 15 percent of the future County population, and trusts would protect land for future development. She also said Hugo could end up with disjointed little parks with no bathroom facilities or parking. Yvonne Stoner, 8520 140th Street North, said she would like to see the ordinance abolished but understood the need to plan for future development. She asked if any thought had been given to zoning with smaller lots to the west and larger lot to the east. She thought common drives would be contentious with neighbors, and urban and rural uses could be conflicting. Jim Bever, 7131, 132nd Street North, said six units per forty acres would not work; it is not economically feasible. He said eight lots would not be enough, and ten lots would be good. He agreed that something needed to be done to preserve the open space and a land trust would be a good way to guarantee it was preserved as rural open space. To divide forty acres into eight lots would only create mini estates. More lots were needed to make it economically feasible. Mike McAllister, 13829 Isleton Avenue North, said he recalled from the last public hearing there were more people against the ordinance than for it, and most did not get the opportunity to testify. He said Oneka Township once permitted smaller lots. An owner of a five acre parcel would pay the full tax rate on five acres. Conservation easements in perpetuity would not happen. Five acre lot subdivisions have been successful, and he strongly suggested staying away from private streets. He also questioned what agricultural uses were. He said western Hugo was created by PUDs, and the Rural and Open Space ordinance should eliminate the PUD to eliminate the flexibility. He suggested postcards be mailed out again to let people know what the City finally intended to do. Wendy Maxwell, 9674 152nd Street North, said many neighbors have a lot of acreage that adjoined her land, and she asked who determined who was allowed to develop and who was not. She asked if there was a set number of homes allowed in the rural area. McRoberts asked why the west side of Hugo should absorb all the density and the best you could do was control it by ordinances. Maxwell suggested sending out a survey to get some feedback. McRoberts said the City should not be accused of not trying to solicit public input. Planning Commission Minutes — September 27, 2007 Page 4 McAllister referred to the 1986 Comprehensive Plan and said Hugo had not proceeded by that plan; west Hugo was manufactured by the City of Hugo. He said when the Council had sent the ordinance back to the Commission, the Council never put a time constraint on the revisions, so the City should take the time to send out cards and a survey to get the community's opinion. He said he recalled the City doing that in 1985 and there was a 20-25% response rate. He also questioned what open space would do to the tax base. McRoberts said he thought more would be preserved by allowing one home per five acres than allowing non -buildable land as open space. Doug Hoffbeck, 8110 120th Street North, said that at the last meeting, there were more people speaking against the ordinance than for it, and he thought people were getting confused on the definition of open space and rural character. He said when they moved there, they knew what the rules were, and now the rules were changing, and they will lose the rural character. Victoria Hoffbeck said the Met Council's Mission Statement had a one home per ten acre rule, and only a finite number of homes would be allowed. Cluster housing by some individuals would prevent others from subdividing their property. She agreed a survey needed to be done. Steve Stoner, 8520 140th Street, said he lived on a ten -acre parcel and that's why he moved here. He was not in favor of cluster housing. Kathy Scobie, 7676 120th Street North, commented that those against the ordinance had not been paying attention to the comprehensive plan updates; preserving open space was one of the goals. One home per ten acres creates open space but does not preserve it. She agreed a strong conservation easement was needed. Yvonne Stoner, 8520 140th Street North, had concerns about what was considered open space. She said there was a lot of flat farm land in Hugo, and one home per ten acres or five acres was the better way to go. Schumann left the public hearing open and asked the Commission for comments. Weidt indicated he was undecided. Moore questioned whether eight units per forty acres would be feasible economically. Kleissler said the ordinance needed to be tightened, and more public input was needed. McRoberts said he was in favor of recessing the public hearing. Bailly said she thought eight homes per forty acres did not seem like too many units, but she was unsure the ordinance would be used. She liked the setback requirements and questioned what types of driveways were being used in existing cluster developments. McRoberts had concerns there was no requirement that buildable area be preserved, and there Planning Commission Minutes — September 27, 2007 Page 5 could be situations where a trust doesn't want the land. The CDD informed the Commission the rural planning policy would be discussed at the next Comprehensive Plan public workshop. McRoberts made motion, Moore seconded, to table the discussion on the Rural and Open Space Ordinance. Ayes: Bailly, Kleissler, McRoberts, Moore, Schumann Nay: Weidt Motion carried. Schumann recessed the public hearing. Adjournment Kleissler made motion, McRoberts seconded, to adjourn at 9:00 p.m. All Ayes. Motion carried. Michele Lindau, Secretary Planning Commission